Every so often, the Australian republishes an editorial from the weekly magazine The Economist. Such is the wealth of mean and nasty material in Murdoch's broadsheet, billed on its masthead as The Heart of the Nation, that I have so far given the occasional Economist piece a miss. However, an Economist editorial (in the May 19 edition of The Australian), bearing the quite incredible headline Give Israel a reason to loosen Gaza chokehold, caught my attention, and, for my pains, I read on, only to discover that which I did not know before.
I won't burden you with too much of its sheer awfulness. The following three examples more than suffice:
1) "Gaza is a human rubbish-heap which everyone would rather ignore. Neither Israel, nor Egypt, nor even the Palestinian Authority wants to take responsibility for it. Sometimes the poison gets out - when, say, rockets or other attacks provoke a fully fledged war... "
Can you imagine a late 1940s editorial describing Europe's displaced persons camps as 'human rubbish-heaps'? It takes a special kind of human being who can look at Gaza today and describe it as a "human rubbish-heap." The same kind that talks of the need to periodically 'mow the grass' there, know what I mean?
Then there's the conceit that Israel, which created the Gaza Ghetto 70 fucking years ago, is not 101% responsible for its creation.
And finally, notice how the editorialist stands reality on its head, with Israel's barbarous, serial massacres in the Gaza Ghetto, each and every one triggered by an Israeli provocation, are spun as Palestinian "poison" provoking an Israeli response. This is nothing but the vilest victim-blaming.
2) "Every state has a right to defend its borders. To judge by the numbers, Israel's army may well have used excessive force... "
MAY WELL HAVE... ??? Seriously? Apparently, the use of US-supplied Remington M24 sniper rifles, firing 'butterfly bullets' (which "explode upon impact, pulverising tissue, arteries and bone, while causing severe internal injuries"*) against unarmed civilians protesting behind a prison fence merits only a "may well have used excessive force." One wonders what it it would take to get a clear admission of excessive force out of this bastard.
3) "If Hamas gave up its weapons, it would open the way for a rapprochement with Fatah. If it accepted Israel's right to exist, it would expose Israel's current unwillingness to allow a Palestinian state. If Palestinians marched peacefully, without guns and explosives, they would take the moral high ground. In short, if Palestinians want Israel to stop throttling them, they must first convince Israelis it is safe to let go."
Where does one even begin with this Zionist gobshite?
"If Hamas accepted Israel's right to exist..."? What, as a permanent, Jewish supremacist, apartheid state in Palestine? And note the outrageousness of "Israel's current unwillingness to allow a Palestinian state." Only NOW has Israel been unwilling to allow a Palestinian state? Really?
"If Palestinians marched peacefully, without guns and explosives..."? What does the editorialist think they've been doing all these weeks?
"If Palestinians want Israel to stop throttling them, they must first convince Israelis it is safe to let go."
Words fail me. This last is simply beyond belief. Up there in the victim-bashing stakes with the best of the worst.
I think I now know all I need to know about The Economist.
[*See Palestinians face explosive bullets, dangerous gas bombs, Mersiha Gadzo, aljazeera.com, 4/5/18.]